"If when we were enemies we were reconciled
to God by the death of his Son, much more being reconciled we shall be saved by his life."Rom. 5:10.

The misunderstanding and misrepresentation
of the at-one-ment, or reconciliation
Jesus effected between God
and man by his death on the cross, have
been fruitful sources of error and repulsive
ideas of God; these have made an
orthodox hell possible, instead of death,
as the wages of Adam's sin, and the
blood of Jesus a necessity to satisfy the
wrath of God, instead of a substitution
of his life in death for the forfeited life
of the world: thus orthodoxy says,

"Jesus Christ who stands between
Angry heaven and guilty men
Undertakes to buy our peace."

Such a representation of the "God
(who) so loved the world that he gave
his only begotten Son," is so abhorrent
and revolting that it has had the effect
of driving some to other extreme and
equally false theories; among whom we
may cite H. W. Beecher, who gave expression
to his belief on this subject in
a sermon preached before the Cornell
University, on June 1st, published
in the New York Herald of June 2d, viz.:
"Christ's work on earth was not to
restore a lost racea fallen onebut to
carry forward and upward a sinful one.
He did not suffer in man's place nor
mend a broken law and make it honorable.
The conception that Christ came
into the world to suffer for sinners is
monstrous.
He came to benefit a
miserable race by making known the
supreme idea of a God of love."

If Christ's work on earth was to carry
forward and upward a sinful race, instead
of to restore a fallen one, man must have
been at creation worse rather than better
than he now is, and therefore there
never could have been a fall.
But how
did he become miserable and sinful?
he could not have made himself so if
he never fell.
Did God make him as
he now is, or worse?
If Mr. Beecher is
right, God cannot be other than the
author of all man's sin and misery, and
being therefore, the author of sin, he
would undoubtedly be evil himself.
In
this view of the case, what was "the
supreme idea of the God of love," and
in what way did Jesus make it known?
How Mr. Beecher can preach this God
as a God of love, a great and good being,
we cannot understand; but it is
written, "The wisdom of their wise
men shall perish and the understanding
of their prudent men shall be hid" (obscured).
(Isaiah 29:14.)
Paul says,
"Through one man sin entered into the
world (in whom all sinned) and
through sin death; so also death passed
upon all men." (Rom. 5:12.Diaglott.) Therefore, these men cannot be right
and God's word true; one or the other
must be wrong.
But the time has
come "when they [the people] will
not endure sound doctrine; but after
their own lusts [desires]...heap to
themselves teachers having itching ears,
and they [teachers] shall turn away
their ears [understanding] from the
truth and shall be turned unto fables"
(2 Tim. 4:3,4), and "denying the
Lord that bought them shall bring
upon themselves swift destruction"
(2 Pet. 2:1).

Every law, human or divine, must
have a penalty attached to its transgression,
otherwise it is no law, lacking
force; the law of God demanded as a
penalty the life of the transgressor, and
Adam through disobedience having incurred
this, all his posterity are heirs
of deathlife being forfeited.
Therefore
indeed as through one offence
"sentence came on all men to condemnation
(condemning all to death) so
also through one righteous act (of
Jesus) sentence came on all men to
justification of life (justifying their
living again)." Rom. 5:18.Diaglott. "If one died for all, then were all dead"
(2 Cor. 5:14).
And "as in [through]
Adam all die, even so (to the same
extent) in [through] Christ shall all be
made alive" (1 Cor. 15:22).

If, therefore, through one man and oneoffence, sin and death entered the world
and passed upon all men there must have
been a fall, and mankind is now in a
fallen condition, and if by one righteousact of the man Christ Jesus judgment,
decision or sentence came, that all men
should be justified to life, or justly entitled
to life, i.e., raised up from the fallresurrectedwe ask what one act of
Jesus could have accomplished this if
not his death on the cross?
The penalty,
as we have seen, was death, not torment;
therefore, he need not give more, nor
could he give less; not only so, but it
was because of his "obedience unto
deaththe death of the crossthat the Father hath highly exalted him."Phil. 2:8.

There is, however, a marked distinction
between the death of Jesus and that of
other men, and this distinctive feature is [R677 : page 5] not in the mode of death, but in the degree
of life possessed by him.
"In him
was life" (John 1:4); not a deathless
life, which could not die, but life everlasting,
so that he would not die, had he
not laid down his life.
All other men
are in bondage to corruption, and have
no life in them by nature, but he being a
perfect and sinless man, was not liable to
sin's penaltydeath; therefore, he could
say, "I lay down my life,...no
man taketh it from me, but I lay it down
of myself; I have power (right) to lay
it down." (John 10:18).
Previously the
"Jews sought to take him to put him to
death," but "no man laid hands on him,
for his hour was not yet come" that he
should be put to death "the just for
the unjust, that he might bring us to
God." 1 Pet. 3:18.
He commenced the
sacrifice of his life at baptism, but had
it not been completed in death, as it was
on the cross, when he cried, "It is
finished," all the rest would have been
valueless, for "without shedding of blood
is no remission,"
And when he said, I
lay down my life, he immediately added,
"I have power to take it again."
Surely
he could not have meant he had power
(right) to take again the sacrifice of his
life from baptism to the cross; this
would be withdrawing his consecration to
the will of the Father.
Besides, how could
he do this?
Nor did he mean that he
would take again the same condition of
lifeflesh and bloodto do this would be
to undo the atoning sacrifice and take
back our ransom price; but, thank God,
he gave his lifeparted with it forever
on the human plane and was made
alive on the spirit plane.

He was "put to death in the flesh." (1 Pet. 3:18)
not to pacify divine fury
against sinners, nor to mend a broken
law and make it honorable; it did not
need this; but he vindicated the justice
of the law and satisfied its claims upon
us by giving himself as our substitute,
flesh for fleshhis life for the life of the
world.
If, however, he had been of the
divine nature as he now is, he could not
have laid down his life, for "Christ
being raised from the dead dieth no
more; death hath no more dominion
over him" (Rom. 6:9); and if he had
been a spiritual being under cover of
flesh he could not have given his life
for man, because his real life would be
spirit, and therefore it would not be asrequired an equivalent or substitute for
man.

That he did exist, a spiritual being with
the Father, and that all things were
made by (through) him, and without
him was not anything made that was
made (John 1:3) is evident, but he
leftgave up the glory he had with the
Father and "was made (became) flesh."
(John 1:14.)
Why should it be any
more incredible that Jesus' nature was
transformed from the spiritual to the
human without retaining his former nature
under cover than that the Church
"shall...put on immortality" (1 Cor. 15:54)
and yet not retain the flesh
and blood nature? for "flesh and blood
cannot inherit the kingdom of God."
(1 Cor. 15:50.)

Then, while we were yet "enemies,
we were reconciled to God by the death
of his son." (Rom. 5:10.)
Reconciliation
for the sins of the whole world was made (Heb. 2:17) for "he died for all,"
but all have not yet accepted the reconciliation
through faith that they may be
"saved by his life."
"In due time,"
soon, we trust, the redemption and consequent reconciliation "shall be testified
to all"all shall "come to the knowledge
of the truth" and to appreciate the
precious redemption: and when they
do, may we not reasonably infer that
nearly all will accept the glad tidings
and come into harmony with God?
We
have good ground to hope that the majority will be "saved by his life," as all were "reconciled by his death."